By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 14 December 2017
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Zekkyou said:

Something can benefit the developer and still be a selling point to some consumers (e.g. funding development of a game that might otherwise not exist), it doesn't have to be just one or the other.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, because i think the disclaimer is fine. It's clearly placed, and gives you a quick but defined description of the key risks. It's worth noting that at least as far as PUBG goes, i expect those risks are exceedingly unlikely. MS are publishing the game, so i'd be surprised if some sort of contract wasn't in place between MS and Bluehole.

No worries, sure some cases you can say that the person want to fund the game, but that isn't really a benefit to himself. Also when talking about a game that already crossed dozen Millions on PC and have MS as publisher doesn't really need extra funding.

On the second part, I agree that we don't pursue this line of though anymore as it really is quite unlikely that MS would just call quits if they can avoid, even if cases like Scalebound happened canceling PUBG wouldn't benefit MS.

Often the benefit is that the game gets the chance to be finished at all, which i expect many would consider a pretty big up side :p A lot of people consider that a big enough positive that they fund completely unreleased stuff on Kickstarter, and early access is a clear step up over that in many respects. And sure, but if something becomes as popular as PUBG it implies it's already in a state that millions consider at minimum temporarily acceptable. They have put that money to work too; the PC version has gone from early access to released in just 9 - 10 months.